Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 2 · Question 22

Incorrect. The results of the experiment being replicated elsewhere strengthens those results.

Incorrect. Before a student at the highest level of spending can be a student at the lowest level, they'd have to pass through intermediate spending. If those students have lower levels of depression, then the argument's conclusion that lowering spending levels won't increase depression is strengthened.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Psychiatrist's observation—The students who spend the most and the least on fun have about the same levels of depression.
Conclusion—The students who spend the most could spend less without getting more depressed.

Answer Anticipation:
First, note that this is a Bizarro Strengthen question, not a Weaken question. The correct answer could weaken the argument, but it could also have no impact on the argument, so it's better not to think of it through a Weaken lens.

Now, on to the flaw in the argument. This argument ping-pongs from those at the highest level of spending to those at the lowest level of spending. It completely ignores everyone in the middle—which is particularly relevant here, as those at the highest level of spending will approach those in the middle when they lower their spending. Answers suggesting that those who spend a moderate amount on fun don't have increased levels of depression will strengthen the argument.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus is about first-year students, so adults between 40 and 60 are a different sample and what's true of them doesn't necessarily apply to those students. Also, this answer connects increased spending with decreased levels of depression—suggesting that decreased spending will have the opposite effect, contradicting the stimulus. This answer either has no effect (different group) or a weakening effect on the argument, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument jumps from one extreme to the other and ignores the middle ground, it's flawed in ignoring that group. Look for polar opposites: highest/lowest; richest/poorest; top students/bottom students—these have all appeared on the LSAT in arguments that ignored middle groups.

Incorrect. This answer provides evidence that the Psychiatrist's observations captured accurate data, strengthening the conclusion based on that data.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that there are examples of the Psychiatrist's conclusion panning out in the real world, thus strengthening it.